Last week a meeting of the UNP’s committee on ‘National Policy and Philosophy’ was convened at parliamentarian Ravi Karunanyake’s home. It was attended by Mangala Samaraweera, Malik Samarawickrema, Tissa Attanayake and Lakshman Seneviratne and it was decided that the views of the public would be sought on the stand the party should take in the future on a whole range of national issues. This meeting, which many would have dismissed as yet another meeting of the UNP’s innumerable committees, will in fact have far reaching implications for the UNP. The grand old party is at the crossroads. The mass rallies staged last year in expectation of a parliamentary coup during the budget fell through and the party has been in the doldrums ever since. For the past several weeks, it has been as if there is no UNP any more. The poster campaign against the rising cost of living launched recently was a flop by all accounts.

The CoL debacle

When the main opposition party organizes an island-wide poster campaign, one would expect it to cover at least all the urban centers or at the very least the main town in each district. But many big towns had not seen a single poster. Take Matara for instance – the seat of the UNP’s deputy prime ministerial aspirant Mangala Samaraweera – there was not a single poster to be seen anywhere in Matara or its environs. Enthusiasm for party work is at a record low. Electoral organizers are apathetic, and so are the grassroots activists that they rely on. In 2004, it was Mangala Samaraweera and his friends in the JVP who had gone to Chandrika Kumaratunga and told her that the UNP government can’t find people even to put up a poster and that the time was ripe to dissolve parliament. Well, things have reached a similar state again. This is partly because the UNP has been flogging a dead horse in taking up the cost of living as their main issue.

Sri Lanka today is a different place to what it used to be. In the past, the cost of living was a major political issue. In 1953, when then Finance Minister J.R.Jayewardene removed the rice subsidy, sending the rice price up from 25 to 70 cents, causing island-wide riots, with the worst affected areas being the electorates where the traditional left parties were strong. People came out on the streets and normal life came to a complete standstill. The ‘hartal’ of 1953 is the closest Sri Lanka has come to a European style insurrection. And all that was over the price of rice. Today, however, an increase in the price of essentials does not elicit a similar response. Some may think this is because the people want to support the war effort and do not want to rock the boat. But the fact is that the people are more mature now and do not tend to get taken in by politicians as they used to in times past.

Furthermore, the country has seen several changes of government over the past seven years from the PA to the UNP in 2001, from the UNP to the PA in 2004 and from Chandrika to Mahinda in 2005. Every time the government changed, the one thing that remained constant was the increase in the cost of living. People no longer believe that any government can bring the cost of living down. In the recent past, when the UNP went to town about the increase in the cost of living after the Rajapaksa government took over, they never said that they would reduce the cost of living or gave the people the impression that they had devised a way of doing so. In such circumstances, the people tend to be apathetic about what they know will not change whichever party comes to power. Hence the cost of living issue that the UNP was using as their lifeline, is essentially dead.

It is in this context that the UNP is desperately in need of a new beginning. The decision to convene the National Policy and Philosophy Committee and invite representations from the public on what stand the party should take on national issues is therefore an opportune step. The party leader is following examples he had seen of similar sessions conducted by the conservative party in Britain and Thaksin Sinawatra’s party in Thailand. If the UNP is in the doldrums without any hope for the future, apart from the leadership issue, one of the main contributory factors is their being out of step with the thinking of the people. The leadership issue in the UNP is also partly this mismatch between what the public thinks and the positions the party holds. The top down approach has been a clear failure. Such an approach will work only if there is enough leadership charisma to carry the people along. While the UNP’s entire outlook on matters from the economy to the cultural policy will be undoubtedly held up to critical appraisal by the committee, the most crucial area will be their stand on the ethnic issue and the devolution of power.

The Augean stables

In the wake of the Kosovo declaration of independence, things have become even more unfavourable for the UNP’s stand. Some months ago, the party did make a half hearted attempt to change its stance eschewing federalism, and declaring that the ceasefire agreement had to be renegotiated in the light of current realities. But this change was not supported by the pro-UNP media. Furthermore, miscalculations made by the party leadership just after the Anuradhapura air base attack resulted in their calling for a ceasefire once again. By claiming that they stood for ‘maximum devolution’ but not for federalism, they conveyed the impression that they stood for federalism though not in name. This impression was further reinforced when the UNP expressed doubt whether the 13th amendment would suffice in the wake of the APRC proposal that the 13th amendment be implemented in full. The long and short of it is that the UNP has shot itself in the foot by half hearted efforts to change their stance. By trying to be everything to everybody, they have ended up with nobody.

When the UNP was unambiguously federalist, they could appeal to the Tamil vote. Now they can’t do that because the Tamils see them as turncoats. In last year’s Hero’s Day speech Prabhakaran made reference to the UNP’s change of stance and held that up as an example of the true nature of Sinhala political parties. Despite having thus come under criticism from the LTTE leader no less, the UNP has not been able to win over the Sinhala voter. The ill-advised comments made by the UNP calling for ceasefires in the wake of the Anuradhapura air base attack and the expression of doubt whether the 13th Amendment would suffice when the APRC report was publicized, has made them suspect in the eyes of the Sinhala public as well. They have thus lost their Tamil vote base without having gained an inch in the Sinhala areas.

In the present writer’s view, never has a political party botched a public policy issue like this before. When the SLFP/PA changed their stance from socialist economics to an open economic policy in their 1994 election manifesto, the transition was not clean and surgical. There were a lot of hiccups along the way. But whatever hiccups they experienced is nothing compared to the total mess the UNP has made of its policy on war and peace and on the devolution of power.

This is where the UNP’s effort to call for representations from the public on their policies will help. If a policy change is effected after taking public representations into account, then the pro-UNP media will have to fall in line and so will the individuals within the UNP.

From around the mid eighties, the devolution of power has been a popular subject in academic and liberal political circles in Colombo. The devolution of power from the centre to regional units was seen by many as a solution to the Tamil insurgency in the north. Until recently, diplomatic circles in Colombo were making statements to the effect that if a devolution package that is acceptable to the ‘moderate Tamils’ is put forward by the government, they would abandon the LTTE and accept the package. The diplomats who advocated this strategy of course failed to make any mention of what would happen if the LTTE rejected such a package and continued with the war. They, for instance, did not say that their governments would twist the arm of the LTTE and make every effort to get the LTTE to fall in line if the government put forward a suitable devolution package. This lack of guarantees kept the devolution issue in limbo for many years. People talked about it, but no action was taken.

The only meaningful action taken in this regard was the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord of 1987 where a devolution package agreed on between India and Sri Lanka was underwritten with military guarantees by India. The devolution issue was seen by various people in various ways. Some thought that the devolution of power from the centre to the regions was a way of settling the conflict in a decent and civilized manner with both sides compromising and coming half way from their respective positions. The LTTE however held that the devolution of power was a cunning way of stymieing the aspirations of the Tamil people and binding them ever more firmly to states dominated by other ethnic groups. The Sinhala nationalists held that the devolution of power was a genteel way of winning a separate state. This was how things stood until last week when the events in far away Kosovo, changed forever the devolution debate in Sri Lanka.

For a couple of weeks before the Kosovo issue took world centre stage, there had been a lull in the devolution debate in Sri Lanka with the APRC having put forward their proposal that the 13th amendment should be implemented in full and the Indians welcoming the proposal. The western embassies in Colombo, which were the real driving force behind the devolution debate, fell silent in the wake of the Indian acceptance of the APRC proposals. Up to that time, the general consensus among the western embassies was that an ‘acceptable’ set of proposals had to go beyond the 13th amendment. The reason why India would have stepped in with an acceptance of the APRC proposals would have been to prevent the western powers from pushing Sri Lanka to a position on devolution which would have upset the geopolitics of the region.

Kosovan turning point

The entire situation now changes with Kosovo’s declaration of independence. India will no longer be able to play Wickremesinghe with the Sri Lankan issue and wait patiently for the problem to disappear of its own accord as they had been doing from 1990 to date. With the declaration of independence made by the Kosovo parliament and its acceptance by the USA and some countries in the EU, raises the specter of subordinate legislatures in federal or quasi-federal states all over the world declaring independence unilaterally. It may of course be that such declarations of independence may not receive the kind of acceptance that the Kosovo parliament got. But still, it sets a worrying precedent. The reason why the West rushed to recognize Kosovo is obviously to have one more friendly Muslim nation in the Balkans. The same need may not manifest themselves in the case of other wannabe independent nations. Yet Kosovo has opened up a Pandora’s box internationally.

Politics is the art of the possible, the old cliché goes. Now that a new frontier has been breached, there’s no stopping the global consequences that will follow. The devolution of power itself will become a dirty word. In the opinion of the present writer, the independence of Kosovo marks the end of the very concept of the devolution of power. No unitary state will henceforth devolve power to newly created units unless they are comfortable with the idea that this is a prelude to complete separation. The federalism that causes two or more independent states to come together to form a larger unit will retain its validity. But any devolution that breaks up an existing unitary set up into autonomous regions will certainly be a no go zone, as such devolution will be seen as the first step to making a unilateral declaration of independence.

Countries like India, which have gone from a highly centralized colonial administrative structure to being a quasi-federal state, are especially vulnerable with its large number of subordinate legislatures which have been formed on a cultural-linguistic basis within its borders. It is actually quite easy for subordinate legislatures to come to a consensus between the ruling party and the opposition within it, to make a declaration of independence. In matters like this ‘trade union’ mentality takes over. When one trade union in some establishment takes action to win workers rights, all other trade unions have to support it for fear of being labeled as blacklegs. When S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike raised the cry of Sinhala only, Sir John Kotelawala followed suit for fear of being up staged as far the Sinhala voter was concerned. Such dynamics manifesting themselves in subordinate legislatures in federal or quasi federal states all over the world, may lead to a rash of UDI declarations.

India was the first country in which Tamil separatism arose. But the movement died a natural death, with the Nehru government banning separatism. The Indian model of power devolution was to grant some autonomy and suppress any attempt to exceed the powers granted. They made an attempt to introduce this same model of devolution to Sri Lanka with the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord, but the process could not be completed due to the shortsightedness of the Sri Lankan authorities. Now however, after Kosovo, India will be forced to see that Sri Lanka follows its model of devolution. If the Tamils in Sri Lanka get a level of autonomy higher than that of India, then it will be matter of time until the demand for a similar level of autonomy emerges in Tamil Nadu as well. Another complicating factor is the fact that Sri Lanka already has a history of a Kosovo style unilateral declaration of independence.

This was the declaration made by the Indian backed north eastern province chief minister Varatharajah Perumal in 1990 as the Premadasa sponsored LTTE closed in on his beleaguered provincial government. Everyone knows that this was an act of desperation on the part of Perumal and that it was not backed even by the Indians. However, the only difference between the Perumal UDI and the Kosovo UDI is the fact that the latter was recognized by the west and the former was not. Even though western backing was not available to Perumal because he was Indian backed, western backing may be available to the LTTE. Even today, after the FBI has listed the LTTE as the most dangerous terrorist outfit in the world, and so many years after the USA declared the LTTE to be a banned terrorist organization, Prabhakaran has only to shout ‘inju inju inju’ from the Vanni and the American Ambassador would go running to him. This is why India will have to take a much firmer stand on the Sri Lankan issue than they have done in the past, lest the western embassies here create a Kosovo on her doorstep.

‘Pinaata hari hina’

Last week, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe attended a meeting of the Badulla UNP district organization to review the progress of party activities there. This meeting was as usual attended by all parliamentarians, provincial councilors, local government representatives electoral organizers and party functionaries in the district. At the end of the evaluation the party leader gave them the target of winning the Badulla district with a majority of 100,000 votes at the next election. While he was in the district Wickremesinghe attended a function in Viyaluwa where scholarships were distributed to some grade 5 students. After presentation of the awards, Wickremesinghe participated in the launch of the children’s book "Pinaata hari hina" by author Dharmasena Mahawela.

Last week Wickremesinghe participated in a ceremony to place the relic casket for the Nawam Perahera to commence. On this occasion, Ven Galaboda Ganissara had praised Wickremesinghe for the support he had extended to the Nawam perahera when it was first held in 1978. Wickremesinghe was then minister of youth affairs in the UNP government.

When the UNP parliamentary group met last week, the main topic of discussion was the removal of the bribery commissioner. Wickremesinghe said that his removal at a time when investigations against several ministers and officials of the government were on, smacks of an attempt to sabotage the proceedings of the commission.

Ravi Karunanyake stood up at the group meeting and raised the issue of the JVP’s India bashing. The party leader gave Ravi K the nod to defend India in parliament. Accordingly, Karunanayake launched into a scathing attack on the JVP over their recent anti-Indian statements. The JVP was trying to take this country back to the dark days of 1987, he said. He charged that the JVP had helped the LTTE in the late eighties by creating havoc in the south calling for the removal of the Indian army and that they are trying to do something similar again.

When the JVP came out of hiding after their failed second insurrection and commenced democratic politics, everybody thought they had eschewed their earlier position on boycotting Indian goods. They were at one time even calling for Maruti vehicles to be used by parliamentarians, but that they had now gone back to their old ways. Karunanayake declared that India was a friend of Sri Lanka, and a vibrant democracy and because of this, nothing untoward would happen to Sri Lanka from India.

In the meantime, the widow of the late Sripathy Sooriyarachchi has written to the IGP stating that she is not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation into her husband’s death has been carried out and that the statements of eyewitnesses have not yet been taken. At last week’s UNP parliamentary group meeting, Wickremesinghe appointed a committee comprising of John Amaratunga and Lakshaman Kiriella to look into the Sooriyarachchi investigation.

The week before last, a meeting of the Asia Pacific Consultative Committee of the World Peace Council (which has nothing to do with the National Peace Council in Sri Lanka) was held in New Delhi. The countries represented were Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Nepal, Bangladesh and India. Sri Lanka was represented by Bimal Ratnayake of the JVP. Speaking at this forum, Ratnayake said that Sri Lanka is not a country with a strong economy, but that it was strategically important and that with the emergence of India and China as world powers, competition has increased to control the Indian Ocean and that for this, the domination of Sri Lanka is a prerequisite.